Digital Only Subscription
Read the digital SMART Edition of The Times-Tribune on your PC or mobile device, and have 24/7 access to breaking news, local sports, contests, and more at thetimes-tribune.com or on our mobile apps.

Digital Services
Have news alerts sent to your mobile device, read the Smart Edition sign up for daily newsletters, activate your all access, enter contests, take quizzes, download our mobile apps and see the latest e-circulars.

On the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, Joseph P. McDonald manned the switchboard at Fort Shafter in Hawaii when he received the alarming message that radar had detected a large number of planes approaching from the north, heading fast for Oahu.
(read more)

Motorists who use the Pango mobile app to pay at parking meters in Scranton will get reimbursed for any inadvertent overcharges since Sept. 1, the new operator of the city’s parking system said.
(read more)

Article Tools

Dueling expert witnesses took the stand Wednesday, presenting conflicting opinions about where the shot that killed Frank Bonacci originated.

A firearms expert called by the defense first presented his findings, saying that it would have been easier to fire the fatal shot from the driver’s seat, where Neil Pal was seated.

After the defense rested its case, prosecutors called their own expert, a forensic pathologist who said the shot must have been fired from the back seat, where Jason Dominick has testified he was seated.

It was the final day of testimony in Mr. Dominick’s trial. The 23-year-old Scranton man is charged with first- and third-degree murder and conspiracy charges. Mr. Pal, also 23 and of Scranton, is charged as an accomplice and is scheduled for trial in June.

The prosecution asserts that Mr. Dominick shot and killed Mr. Bonacci on July 20, after an all-night party at Mr. Pal’s home in the Hill Section of Scranton. Over the eight days of the trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Dominick fired the fatal shot from the back seat of Mr. Bonacci’s Jeep, while Mr. Pal drove the trio from his home to the Step Falls area. Mr. Dominick and Mr. Pal then forced the vehicle over a cliff, where it was found seven days later with Mr. Bonacci’s body inside.

Defense theory

The defense has countered with another version of events, saying Mr. Dominick was an unwitting witness who watched Mr. Pal fire two shots, missing with the first and killing Mr. Bonacci with the second. Mr. Dominick then helped cover up the slaying because Mr. Pal threatened to kill his younger sisters and his ex-girlfriend, Keri Tucker.

If Mr. Dominick did pull the trigger from the back seat, Emanuel Kapelsohn said there should have been residue from the gun on the passenger seat or headrest.

The final witness for the defense testified there would have been a “distinct pattern” of lead and other residue deposited on the seat.

Though he conceded that the seat covers had deteriorated between the time the shot was fired in July and his examination that began in April, there still should have been evidence of the close-range shot.

The “close contact” wound indicated that the gun was about an inch away from Mr. Bonacci’s head, according to previous testimony.

Mr. Kapelsohn also concluded that the shot likely came from the driver’s seat, where Mr. Pal was behind the wheel.

He and defense attorney Bernard Brown, wearing special protective suits, sat in the Jeep and recreated the night of July 20, using an orange plastic gun for the simulation.

“It’s possible that this shot could have fired by either” the driver or the backseat passenger, he said, adding that it was “much harder and much less likely for the back seat passenger.”

He also considered Mr. Dominick’s testimony, that he was on the right side of the back seat, as well as the fact that Mr. Dominick is right-handed. Though it was possible he shot with his left hand, firing with a nondominant hand is highly unlikely, even for well-trained professionals, Mr. Kapelsohn said.

No testimony indicated which is Mr. Pal’s dominant hand.

Assistant District Attorney Bill Fisher countered, saying Mr. Dominick could have taken the shot from the middle backseat, but Mr. Kapelsohn said even so, the shot would have been easier for the driver. He said Mr. Bonacci’s head would have been turned away from the driver.

Prosecution’s rebuttal

Wayne Ross, M.D., a forensic pathologist, a rebuttal witness for the prosecution, disputed that claim.

He focused on the blood patterns, through his examination of photos of the Jeep, autopsy results and other evidence, concluding that the shot was fired from the back seat.

He clicked through slides on the courtroom display screen, leading jurors again through the evidence, adding arrows to photos of the bloody center console to show where the blood flow began.

The shot couldn’t have come from the driver’s seat based the body position indicated by those blood patterns, he said.

Angling his body back in his chair in the witness box, he demonstrated how he believed Mr. Bonacci was positioned.

“I don’t see how the driver can do it,” Dr. Ross said. He is not related to Gary Ross, M.D., the forensic pathologist who performed Mr. Bonacci’s autopsy.

Dr. Wayne Ross said unless the driver moved to the back seat to shoot and returned to the driver’s seat, it couldn’t have been him.

“It’s the guy in the back,” Dr. Ross said. “It’s the person in the back that’s the shooter.”

- Emanuel Kapelsohn, a firearms expert called by the defense, testified he examined the scene and all the evidence in the case, but could not conclusively say the shot came from one direction or the other. However, he argued it would be an easier shot to make from Neil Pal’s position in the driver’s seat than Jason Dominick’s position

- Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist called by the prosecution in rebuttal to Mr. Kapelsohn’s testimony, said blood evidence in the Jeep and wounds on the body when it was discovered can only point to a shot being fired from behind.

- Mr. Pal was subpoenaed by attorney Bernard Brown to testify. Mr. Pal did not take the stand, though, because Mr. Brown was advised by Mr. Pal’s defense team their client would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

What’s next

Closing arguments by the prosecution and defense will begin at 9 a.m. today. Judge Terrence Nealon will then instruct them on the law and they will begin deliberations.

Jason Dominick is charged with an open count of homicide. Prosecutors are seeking a conviction for either first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, or third-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 20 to 40 years in prison.

Legal experts previously interviewed by The Times Tribune outlined the potential outcomes of the case:

To convict Mr. Dominick of first-degree murder, jurors must find Mr. Dominick fired the shot, and that he did so with malice and the specific intent to kill Mr. Bonacci. That intent, known as premeditation, can be formed in seconds.

To convict of the lesser charge of third-degree murder, the jurors must find Mr. Dominick fired the shot, and that he did so with malice and extreme indifference for life, but there was no premeditation.

If jurors believe Mr. Dominick’s account that his co-defendant, Neil Pal, fired the fatal shot, they cannot convict him on either homicide charge.

He could still be convicted of conspiracy to commit first- or third-degree murder, even if he is acquitted of the underlying counts, if jurors believe there was an agreement between Mr. Pal and Mr. Dominick that one of them would kill Mr. Bonacci.

The conspiracy charge carries the same sentence as the underlying crime.

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.